If
you were asked what the shape on the left was the most likely answer
was a number three.

But
place exactly the same figure in a different context - among letters
- then it can be read as a B, even though it does not have the upright
bar expected with the letter B. This is what occurs if its is part
of Titbits.

Sometime
in 1968 the Titbits banner heading was changed to that on the right,
presumably because someone liked their titbits to be complete. This
example indicates that the world is not just simply what it appears
to be. What is 'seen' is constructed and represents
an accommodation between what is known and the information received
through the visual sense. A few examples from classic psychology
experiments are shown below to illustrate that we take into account
the context when we 'see' information and that it is the context
that 'determines' what is 'seen'.

In
the first example there is a character rather like the B in the
original Titbits title. But when one reads across, rather than down,
instead of being 'seen' as a letter it is read as the
number 13 because of the context it is in. Similarly the example
with what is normally read as H in the word THE contains a character
that could just as easily be read as an A if the surrounding letters
were C and T as in the word CAT.

The
following sections take this type of explanation of visual perception
a stage further to demonstrate how and why semi-subliminal elements
of ads are often overlooked and yet are subject to the same rules
of perception as other images. They may thus possibly influence
those who view them.

Visual
Perception

The visual system is extremely complex
and it is impossible to do it justice on this site. Interested readers
are recommended to view the article in the edition of the Geographic
magazine containing the original of this small scale reproduction.
Alternatively any psychology
textbook or textbook on perception will provide stimulating reading.
A number of these are listed on the Psychology
Bibliography. The sections below can only give a brief indication
of how we can be both fooled by visual information and how even
ambiguous information can be interpreted meaningfully. There is
also an indication of how such ambiguity, when presented in adverts,
need not prevent automatic processes from extracting some information,
even if this never reaches conscious awareness.

Visual
Illusions

It
is generally believed that visual illusions are simply curiosities
but by studying illusions it is possible to come to an understanding
of how normal vision works - and how it can be fooled by unexpected
cues, such as those provided in many ads containing semi-subliminal
material. And how knowledge of such rules can be put to use in
constructing semi-subliminal and manipulative adverts.

Normally
we do not expect illusions in dealing with the everyday world.
We have learned that the world is 3 dimensional. We thus interpret
all visual signals as if they came from a 3 dimensional object.
It is this 'over learning' which allows us to look at pictures,
photographs and paintings and 'see' them as if they were 3 dimensional
objects, even though we know they are clearly only 2 dimensional
representations.

In
certain circumstances, the fact that we are presented with incomplete
information, as
is always the case with two dimensional pictures, leads to inappropriate
conclusions. For example, in the figure on the right we can either
perceive faces or a vase. Viewing the image normally means
we can never 'see' both at the same time.

In
the Kanizsa triangle illusion, presented on the Imagination
page, it seems as though there is a brighter triangle superimposed
on another triangle in the background. Despite appearances, there
is, in fact, no difference in brightness levels between the central
area of this image and the surrounding area. Similarly with the
length of the lines in the illusion shown below. They seem to
be different lengths but, as measurement will demonstrate, they
are in fact identical in length. You can prove this to yourself
by drawing the same shapes on any piece
of paper.

This
illusion occurs because we know that element in the real world
that are nearer to us are larger than those that are further away.
Thus, on the assumption that one line is closer than the other,
the visual system 'decrees' that it must be smaller than what
lies further away. We thus perceive what we would expect to occur
naturally in the real world rather than the inappropriate 2 dimensional
representation that does not reflect real world reality. Rules
regarding one object obscuring another that is further away also
play a part in determining how we view two dimensional images
- and judge illusions such as the Kanizsa triangle.

Two
dimensional representations, whether presented on this site or
in advertising, can only
be interpreted on the basis of cues concerning colouring and shading.
The rest of our understanding draws upon our knowledge of the
real world, lit from above, with objects in front obscuring those
behind, those closer appearing larger, etc.

Here
we have an image of Labrador dog. Once its position is identified
(the rollover indicates the position of its head) subsequent viewing
leads to easy 'recognition'. On initial viewing, however, it may
take some time to identify the dog because all the visual system
'picks up' is a montage of black and white. Our understanding
of the real world leads to the organization of the visual input
into meaningful
images: a dog, a pathway, the base of a tree, etc. This also applies
even if the image is further degraded as in the illustration on
the right. Most individuals identify this as a man riding a horse.

In
these illustrations there was no intention to mislead viewers.
However, if this type of imagery were included in advertising
the intentions of the advertisers ought to be considered suspect.
Advertising agencies know that 'over learning' the rules that
apply to reality leads viewers to accept as normal that which
is clearly abnormal when considered retrospectively.

The
following illusions indicate some additional processes which occur
normally but which on occasion can lead us to make false judgements.
Some of the illusions also illustrate how we can make sense of
incomplete and ambiguous images, the sort that appear regularly
in manipulative and semi-subliminal advertising. As you will discover,
application of standard visual rules can lead one to identify
with some degree of precision what many would consider simply
variations in texture without any meaning.

First, close your right eye and stare at
the red cross. Then slowly move closer to the screen. The red
dot will eventually disappear from your view when it is focused
on the 'blind spot' on your retina. This is the area where the
optic nerve passes through the retina. As a result there are no
photoreceptors to respond to sensory input and whatever is in
front of that spot cannot be seen. However, we do not have a blind
spot in our visual field because the brain improvises 'information'
from the surrounding area and 'fills in' the 'blind spot'. We
see a complete image. In this case the lines surrounding the red
spot fill the space. In real life information from the scene we
are viewing 'fills in the gap' in our vision.

Next,
stare at the cross in the middle of the coloured patches for a
while and then shift your gaze to the cross in the grey area you
will see patches of colour appear there. This is generally because
the neurones that are sensitive to one colour become fatigued
after use and become 'overridden' by their complementary colours.
You thus see what is not there: clockwise from the upper left
(red) you perceive green, red, blue and yellow instead of the
original red, green, yellow and blue.

Look
now at the two dark lines in the illustration on the right. The
one on the right seems distinctly longer than that on the left.
Our knowledge of perspective 'tricks' the brain into 'seeing'
the line on the left as short, because it is 'closer'. Even when
we know we are looking at a two dimensional image and not a three
dimensional scene our visual systems are still bamboozled.

The
small triangles in the centres of the two larger triangles are
identical in colour. However, because our perceptual system takes
all of a scene or context into account when determining colour,
we see one as being slightly darker than the other because of
the surrounding colours. Consider this when you look at the Kanizsa
triangle on the Imagination page.

It was noted above that we learn that
reality has certain characteristics
and these are taken into account when we judge what we are seeing.
Here is an excellent example. The two illustrations alongside
are identical, except that that one has been rotated 90 degrees
relative to the first. This simple rotation leads us to judge
them differently. The differential judgements arise because we
take into account the angle at which light is presumed to 'hit'
an object i.e. from the sun up above. So we do not just see a
2 dimensional object, we see it as if it were in the real 3 dimensional
world.

The
first illustration seems nicely balanced but when turned 90 degrees
one can perceive an X of concave and convex circles respectively.

The
illustration on the left gives the impression that the long lines
are converging or diverging. This is an illusion created by our
judgement of the cross hatched lines. The long lines are in fact
parallel to each other and it is the action of brain cells that
gauge orientation as they respond to a mixture of alignment signals
that that mislead us.

Where
the white lines cross you should be able to see small, dark, spots.
These do not actually exist. Our perception of them is actually
created by brain cells that respond selectively to black and white.
To produce a crisp, clear, image the retinal cells that surround
the area responding to input are either inhibited or excited.
Where there is a pattern such as in this illusion, instead of
clarifying our perception of the world this process
'produces' the impression of spots where none in fact exist.

When one is looking
at ambiguous aspects of semi-subliminal advertising the same processes
are at work trying to detect 'edges' around incomplete figures.
Instead of perceiving incomplete figures we 'see' meaningful figures.
For example, the image of the Devil on the left has no outline
or edge, yet nevertheless we see it as a face, rather than as
ambiguous grey blotches. You may also note that certain areas
of the image seem brighter than others, despite the background
being a uniform colour. In ads such imagery would be embedded
in ads and what we perceived would be influenced by the surrounding
context and our previous knowledge.

If
successfully embedded then we would not consciously notice embedded
figures such as those believed to be embedded in the following
extracts from Marlboro adverts. See below for additional commentary
related to these extracts, in particular the image on the left.

Gestalts
and Organization

The
perceptual system is an organizing system. Where there is simply a
meaningless array of objects in the 3 dimensional world the perceptual
system produces organization. The following illustrations demonstrate
that although we could simply 'see' arrays of individual objects what
we perceive are organized sets or clusters of objects.

The
simplest figure shows some
crosses and squares. They could be 'seen' as pairs of crosses and
squares or as 12 different shapes. But they
are not. We see them as two lines of crosses and squares. Similarly
when presented with a larger array of the same shaped objects we will
perceive four matching sets of crosses and squares, rather than 48
images, or whatever.

Some
of this mental organization arises because of proximity as the illustration
on the right shows. The gap between the column on the left and the
other columns is sufficient to produce an appreciation of one single
column and a group of four columns.

With
unusual patterns there is still the superimposition of perceptual
organization
and this can lead to the perception of 'letters' and 'words'. The
illustration on the left, for example, does not produce an appreciation
of a random display of shapes, we perceive instead four lines. Other
rules relating to Common Fate, Closure and Symmetry can also be identified
in the way in which we make judgements about images laid out in 2
dimensional images. All of these processes can be manipulated to produce
particular perceptions and influence judgements. Consider for example
how little effort it would require to organise the shapes on the continuity
image into an approximation of the letters SEX, especially if they
were to overlap. Check out the rollover to see. Four dots have been
removed and one added. It still looks like a collection of lines but
the example now included 3 overlapping letters. If such an example
were embedded in an ad on its own it would probably have little impact.
If it were presented in conjunction with other 'letters' and/or relevant
cues, the ad could make quite an (unconscious) impact.

Various
illustrations based on sets of colours such as shown below can also
be used to demonstrate that what we 'see' is dependent upon the context
in which we see them. If the colours illustrated in the boxes on the
right could have been reproduced accurately on screen it could be
shown that both contain exactly the same sets of coloured squares.
The two sets are simply laid out in different orders. However, when
each square is compared with its identical
counterpart, because of the different surrounding colours, each colour
is 'seen' as being somewhat different. More information about such
phenomena can be found in the book Visual Intelligence
by Donald D. Hoffman and other books on perception. A larger example,
giving you the opportunity to move the various colours around to compare
'differences' can be accessed by clicking here.

The
fact that perception is partly influenced by context helps explain
why one can clearly 'see' a semi-subliminal embedded figure within
the context of an ad or a work of art. However, when it is extracted
and presented on its own the image does not seem the same. The image
may, in fact, become unrecognisable as the various cues available
in the surrounding area are no longer present to help guide the perceptual
decision making. In effect, one is seeing a different image. Other
factors relevant to this phenomenon are related to various rules as
noted below.

A
second major part of an explanation for the differences that are perceived
when viewing segments of ads in and out of context relates to how
we perceive the edges of objects/images in two dimensional representations.
Common-sense 'tells us' that we see the edges of objects. Research
indicates otherwise. We actually 'construct' the objects that we 'see'.
We learn to 'recognize' discrete, sharp, edges even though the information
we receive through our visual sense (the eye) is vague and uncertain.
The edges of many of the objects illustrated on web sites, in paintings
and ads, etc are actually fuzzy as you can verify by enlarging them
slightly or viewing them with a magnifying glass. Nevertheless, despite
the fuzziness around the edges we 'see' distinct edges. Similarly,
even when there is slight variation in colouring we perceive solid
colours.

Despite
the limitations of our visual system we need not get concerned. Our
judgement remains secure even although it is based on a fallacy, the
fallacy that we actually 'see' what exists in the real world.

Our
conscious perception of what we are seeing is much more clearly delineated
- and thus much more useful - than the indistinct and fuzzy visual
input received at our eyes. The illustration included in the next
paragraph gives some insight into this process and how it is influenced
by pre-existing knowledge by focussing upon the judgement of perceived
contours.

The
impression in this illustration is of ridges and valleys. It seems,
therefore, that the shading
ought to vary across each segment of the illustration i.e. the area
between each of the noticeable boundaries ought to vary in brightness,
depending upon how much light it was receiving. This is, in fact,
what is perceived. Light seems to be catching the illustration from
the right hand side. The right hand side of each segment is thus perceived
to be darker than the left hand side. Yet this is an illusion produced
by the visual system.

If
you cover up the edges of any of the segments or run the mouse over
the image to see the rollover image you will note that the shading
is pretty much the same all the way across. With perfect reproduction
of the basic image that was scanned the same effect can be produced
by segments that are uniform in colour, other than the contoured edge.
It is the existance of the contoured edge at the side of each segment
that leads us to perceive dips and ridges. And, since these dips and
ridges are seemingly there, our judgement of what we are 'seeing'
must take this into account. Accordingly, we 'see' variations in shading
that do not exist in reality.

Accurate
variation in shading can only be recorded by a light meter. People
with normal vision are incapable of such accurate judgements because
our perceptual systems are designed to enhance any edge/contour. We
then can clearly 'recognize' objects even when the visual input is
actually fuzzy and indistinct. When these and other powerful rules
of perception intended to be applied to the real, three dimensional,
world are applied to two dimensional images we are often deluded.

The
type of 'errors' produced by the perceptual system, in conjunction
with various other rules applied to the information extracted from
the visual system (see Hoffman's book on
Visual Intelligence), mean that it is possible to 'see' embedded figures
in adverts even if these figures are incomplete. The perceptual system,
in effect, 'completes' them just as it 'fills in' the blind spot in
our vision produced by the lack of receptors in the centre of the
human retina.

Various
perceptual rules that are applicable to 3 dimensional reality are
applied to 2 dimensional ads in order to extract meaningful information
or to make sense of the
input. For example rules regarding curvature are applied in conjunction
with knowledge of contours. These lead to judgements as to whether
an object is convex or concave. A perfect application of these rules
to a two dimensional advert can be found in the extract from a Marlboro
ad reproduced on the right. If it seems familiar, then so it ought
to be, it was initially presented near the top of this page in another
context.

The
'face' that can be perceived has no distinct edge but the essential
facial features can be 'seen', embedded within the background. This
'face' can be 'seen' because of judgements based on the 'rules of
perception'. The rules are applied to the variations in texture evident
in the image even if these do not produce a complete image. This is
an automatic set of processes that are applied whenever a normally
sighted person is viewing a two dimensional or three dimensional object,
providing they do not allow their judgement to be 'biased' by oversimplistic
or concrete thinking and make snap judgements about the ad as a whole.

Other
rules are also applicable. As was noted above, where objects are partially
obscured or where contiguous or aligned edges exist, there is an assumption
that one object is in front of another (as evident in the Kanizsa
triangle illusion) and that the object has a particular shape. Additionally,
when there are curves, these are taken to indicate rims (edges or
outlines of objects). Concave creases point in to an object
whereas convex creases point out of an object. The
'eyes' of the Marlboro 'face' are darker and have concave 'creases'
- they are further away. The 'nose' has convex 'creases' and is lighter
- it is closer. The 2 dimensional image thus assumes a 3 dimensional
form based on the application of the rules of visual perception allied
with existing
knowledge of the world.

On
the basis of intuitive judgements, appraisal of a number of Malboro
ads and knowledge of the rules of visual perception, it is therefore
possible to state with a considerable degree of certainty that this
'face' is not simply a judgement based on aberrations in the colouring
of the ad. Nor is the 'image' simply the projection of ideas around
a set of ambiguous visual information. This embedded image (face)
was intended to be perceived, unconsciously, as a face or as some
other meaningful entity by some of those who would view the ad.

A
few possibilities seem likely. The author prefers the primary interpretation
to be related to death or dying because of other contextual features
of the ad e.g. depressive colouring, helicopters in the background,
various connotations associated with the caption, etc. One possible
interpretation leads to 'identification' of the face as that of a
dead, buried and decaying individual. Others, equally reasonable,
could be face-like imagery related to the Star Wars movie. The 'face'
shares some of the same essential structure as the headgear of a Star
Wars trooper (illustrated above) and, to a lesser extent imagery from
other science fiction movies e.g. the alien in Predator, or a latter
day soldier in anti biological warfare gear as illustrated on the
left.

What
is ultimately 'recognized' is not simply what is in the ad, it is
what is the outcome of mental processes triggered by the ad.
The 'recognition may occur intuitively and consciously, as in the
author's analysis of the ad, or preconsciously in instances of normal
viewing when individuals are predisposed on the basis of previous
knowledge or expectations. An ex-soldier, for example, might respond
to the mood of the ad. If a depressed mood were enhanced by the embedded
imagery, this could lead to depressive thoughts. If the viewer were
a Star Wars fan the response might be quite different. To paraphrase
the popular saying 'Horses for courses', one might state that ads,
in particular embedded elements of ads, present 'Images for Individuals'.

The construction of
specific images are likely to be based on the type of psychographic
analysis discussed in textbooks on marketing
and consumer behaviour. Language is also an important factor
as the next section demonstrates. Complementary information can be
found on the
Imagination page.

The
two lists of images and titles are the basis for a simple experiment
that can demonstrate that how we name images affects how we remember
them and also how we might draw what we remember. Note that each
list has identical images. What differs is simply the label that
is attached to each image.

When
people are shown either one or other list and then asked to recall
what they have seen it is almost invariably the case that what they
recall is influenced by the label associated with it. The first
image in each case is a rough diamond shape within a square but
note that the lines of the 'diamond' are slightly curved. When viewers
recall this list the lines are straightened in any drawing that
they produce. In contrast when viewers are given the list with the
label curtains in window they draw even more enhanced curves to
make their drawing much more like 'curtains in a window'. Similar
results apply to most of the items on the list. When individuals
are tested the results are generally not as powerful as when two
groups of people are compared. However, there usually are sufficient
differences even with an individual trying to recall images to make
this a powerful reminder that we do not simply see things.

The
conclusion that is drawn on the basis of such studies is that we
do not simply remember shapes, we associate them with language. And,
if we label objects, then it is the label or name that may influence
our judgements of what we 'see'. Hence, when viewing ambiguous stimuli
or embedded words in ads it is our previous knowledge that will,
in part, determine what we perceive. Advertising agencies are, of
course, familiar with this and other aspects of psychology and they
would be remiss if they did not make use of their knowledge to facilitate
sales. However, when they cross the boundary into using embedded
and other manipulative techniques then this is surely unacceptable.

ï¿½

Commentary
and information about any of the ads or requests
on this Web site can be sent by e-mail to the
Webmaster

To
the best of the author's knowledge none of the
illustrations, in the format used on this site,
are subject to copyright. If copyright has been
inadvertently breached please contact the author
in order to rectify the matter. All brands and
logos referred to or illustrated on this site
are the property of the relevant companies and
copyright holders. However, commentary and other
information produced by the author can be freely
copied and distributed. Similarly, illustrations
of ads, so long as they are accompanied by commentary
or are presented in the form of parody, can also
be copied and distributed but please acknowledge
subliminalworld.com as the source. Translation
of tobacco company ads and relevant commentary
into languages other than English will be particularly
welcomed.